Open Discussion

Talk amongst yourselves

Week 7 Open Game Discussion

Unless you're a David Johnson fantasy owner, the Broncos-Cardinals Thursday night game looks like a snoozer, but eight games on Sunday pit two teams at .500 or better against each other: Titans-Chargers, Patriots-Bears, Texans-Jaguars, Vikings-Jets, Panthers-Eagles, Cowboys-Washington, Bengals-Chiefs, and maybe the biggest game of the week, New Orleans traveling to Baltimore to take on the Ravens. Use this thread to discuss them all.

Okay, on replay, Aikman may be partially right in assigning blame here to a receiver who stopped his route.

On the other hand, what Aikman failed to point out is that receiver was double covered, and I'm not even sure he could have completed the route without teleporting through the defender in front of him. Maybe try and draw a defensive foul (close to being inside of 5 yards, though).

I think it's mostly on the line. If the lineman engages his defender well, the guy can't really tip a pass--if you're getting shoved in the chest by a 300-pound man, you naturally get your hands down to defend yourself. Sometimes a QB can contribute too though. I remember some Eagles QB--Kevin Kolb maybe?--getting a lot of passes tipped a few years ago. He had a tendency to pat the ball with his offhand right before he threw it, which tipped off defenders to get their hands in the air.

I don't know that anyone set a firm statistical benchmark for it, but it meant playing terribly for most of the game, then playing well enough with your team losing by a million to salvage a respectable statline.

The Broncos are winning on pick-sixes and trick plays. I'm happy about this, and probably will be until six months later, when the Broncos record will have dropped them out of the top 5 and they just miss finding a QB.

I don't know that they would've been a contender for a top 5 pick. DVOA has them as an above average team, so being stuck in the mediocrity of the 7-9, 8-8 area was and is more likely. Actually, if they had held onto that lead against the Chiefs a few weeks ago they could be in position to pull within a half game here while also holding the tiebreaker.

I suspect that a fair bit of that is that Mile High is tough to play in September; everyone's still rounding into shape, it's hot, and the altitude kills opponents in the 4th quarter. Winning a couple of games there is par for the course.

Also the fact that the Broncos run defense has seemingly gone to complete suck has an impact on my perception.

Interestingly, the 49ers, even with Beathard, have mostly looked reasonable in their other games (they came very close to beating the Chargers on the road (well, I guess that doesn’t really count as a road game), and we all saw them blow a lead in Lambeau on Monday night. Against the Cardinals, the 49ers had a Vikings vs Bills-level meltdown and turned the ball over on every other possession. The ‘76 Buccaneers would have beaten the Niners that day.

I'm going to give the kickoff returners a pass on that and assume they knew full well their offense wasn't scoring with normal field positions. 25, 15, whatever. Better to gamble on a long return and the possibility of points.

Well most of the football world saw this coming, though. They almost fooled us by playing the Bears and Seahawks tough, and beating the 49ers. Pretty much the only people who are surprised the Cardinals are bad are...the Cardinals organization.

It's that stadium. Nothing good can happen to the Seahawks there. You could dress Bethune-Cookman in Cardinals uniforms, and they'd not only cover the spread, someone in last year's "Top 100" would get injured for at least four games.

On the defensive pass interference just before the end of the half, the DB had his hand grabbing inside the neckline of the jersey pulling down on the uniform and making the receivers neck hole about 50% bigger. Mike Perara's comment "that's a good call". Is it his job to make Aikman appear insightful?

Their audience ranges from people who are incredibly well informed about the game–for example, I wouldn't be shocked if Peyton Manning still enjoys watching football–to people who are watching the game for the first time, people who aren't interested in football and watching with their significant others, and people who just aren't that smart. Therefore, they have to make sure that the latter group has a decent idea of what's going on. So Mike P. pointing out that it was a good call–there are probably people in the audience who don't realize when it goes from legal to illegal. Sure, it's obvious, but they're probably betting that there are people who won't get that, and they need to make it perfectly clear.

Then again, I watch with the sound off, so my insight into this is dubious at best.

That's a good point. I've often wondered why the play-by-play guys don't ask more "lob ball" questions for the color guys on basic football events during a broadcast. That gives the expert a chance to both explain the core rules and subtleties as appropriate, satisfying both audiences.

I get what you're saying and it's a good point but I still think commentators do a bad job of explaining things to either audience. For example, they use a lot of football terms to talk about certain types of plays or routes without explaining what those mean and often actually getting them wrong anyway (e.g. reverse vs end around).

I think this why Romo is the only commentator actually worth anything. He does a good job providing insight that's useful to people to have a deep knowledge of the game but he also uses mostly plain language so people who are less familiar with football can also benefit from his description.

Aikman and Buck just blather on about pointless crap, don't give any useful insight, still use plenty of football jargon and still get use that jargon incorrectly. It's the worst of both worlds.

Hah. I mean I guess with the way games are split across networks and only shown in certain areas there's no real competitive pressure to have better commentators. Either that or the average fan is just stupid/doesn't care which to be honest wouldn't surprise me either.

As recently as three years ago, Cris Collinsworth was excellent. I don't know why he fell off so hard, but around that time there was a big stupid controversy where Broncos fans thought he was rooting against them in the booth for some reason I never understood. I met tons of people around that time who told me versions of "oh I don't like Collinsworth because of the Broncos" or some such. Did NBC tell him to never say anything except bubble-gum saccharine? Will CBS similarly ruin Romo? Can Romo even be ruined, if all those years in Dallas didn't already?

Is this really going to be a thing - were going to explain that a commentator is a Jerk because he said something stupid in the media when he was prompted to say something when he was in his 20's 20+ years ago.

I think Collinsworth has declined in his role principally because he understands the run game and the traditional "pro-set" offense much better than he understands how option plays are being used to strain the DL & LB position. You can notice this if you watch him in a few consecutive games with different teams playing - he's much more interesting when he watches a 2000's style pro offense operate than he is watching the current-incarnation eagles. It's probably fair to say that he and Al Michaels were having more fun in 2014 than they are today in the booth, but is that really the main reason for the decline?

The first time Madden explained line play with all the "Boom!"s and "Look at the muds," it was great. By the 159th time, it lost something. When Phil Simms moved to the booth, he was held in the same kind of regard as Romo is now. Familiarity breeds contempt, and the top guys are all overexposed.

Watching DBs trying to catch interceptions and failing, even when the ball lands right in their hands, is a good reminder that what receivers do is actually a lot harder than it seems most of the time.

Also, Aikman just said "Rosen, good drive" after a TD drive in which Denver DBs dropped two such possible interceptions.

I just tuned in at halftime. Just saw Josh Rosen luckily avoid a sack-fumble only to scramble-fumble a few plays later. I'm hoping this game will go down as a lesson for Rosen. I really had high hopes for him coming to the NFL.

Plummer salvaged a decent career when he went to Denver, but he was mostly awful during his time with the Cardinals (mostly not his fault... you could argue he was in an Archie Manning-type situation).

Best QB/P, definitely yes. As far as pure QB, Jim Hart and Neil Lomax made six pro bowls between them back before the Cards left St. Louis. Since the move to Arizona...yea, it's been pretty ugly, with a crew of Timm Rosenbachs and Jake the Snakes. They also spent high/mid-round picks on something named Joe Sacca and Stoney Case. We all remember Matt Leinart, of course.

One thing they are good at is resurrecting the dead careers of aging veterans (Warner, Palmer). I look forward to Derek Carr, Andrew Luck, or Marcus Mariota having an all-Pro season and leading the Cardinals deep into the playoffs in 2027.

So now the Cardinals have fired their offensive coordinator, Mike McCoy. What's interesting to me is that the new guy will apparently be Byron Leftwich. At age 38 there are still plenty of Leftwich's QB contemporaries in the league and starting. Would be funny if one of them was playing for the Cardinals instead of a rookie and Leftwich was coaching a guy he used to compete against.

Byron Leftwich then? Generally, journeyman players tend to be better coaches than superstars because they tend to go around the league a whole lot and learn more systems than if they just stayed with one team (Compare Joey Porter to ... I'd say Mike Vrabel). So ... let's see how that turns out. He can't possibly ruin the Cards offense even more.

A counterpoint: Josep Guardiola, generally regarded as the best coach in soccer, was an outstanding player who spent essentially his whole career with one team. If Halls of Fame were a thing in the same way, he might miss out (based on his playing career - he'd be first ballot as a coach), but only because he missed a lot of time with injuries. Steve Smith might be a reasonable comparison. And going further back, all-time top 10 players like Cruyff and Beckenbauer had very successful coaching careers. I think it might just be that there are a lot more journeymen than stars, so of course more of them succeed as coaches.

There was once a study done on Olympic Archers that showed they could predict who would win the gold medal by how little brain activity they had going on as they took their shot. Less brain activity - more succesful archer. Likewise, when the Seattle Mariners tried to have Ken Griffey Jr. help with teaching younger players how to hit it didn't work because his advice was basically "see the ball, make contact, then it will go really far." Thinking about what and how they are doing it makes athletes demostrably worse at what they are doing.

To the extent that mediocre to bad players have to think about the mechanics of what they are doing to succeed or compete, and possibly how to train themselves to succeed and compete, I would almost never hire a great athlete to coach the position they were good at.
_______

I have a family member who makes his living in youth baseball instruction, and Ken Griffey Jr is INFAMOUS for terrible hitting advice. He's got some training equipment and techniques available on the market and they're all terrible. One of his big things is to "swing down on the ball", which I guess is how he thinks about it, but it's the last thing you want to tell somebody who's learning to swing a bat--you end up with kids chopping the ball straight down onto homeplate. There are definitely a lot of athletes who just have an intuitive ability to perform and really can't teach.

That said, I don't think there's any fundamental reason an elite athlete couldn't be a good teacher. In the current NFL for instance, I bet Joey Bosa, with his precise technique and large array of rush moves, would make for a very good tutor to a developing defensive end. On the other hand, Khalil Mack would probably make for a lousy position coach, since his game is largely built on being stronger, faster, and meaner than the other guy, and that isn't really anything that can be taught.

Jacksonville continues to hurl resources at the running back position, in spite of it producing no tangible results. Hyde had a good year in 2016 in Chip Kelly's system, but has been barely above replacement level the rest of his time in the league. I have to believe an equal player to Hyde could not have been acquired for nothing.

Fournette is shaping up to be an epic bust, and providing further proof of why it is unwise to spend significant draft capital on running backs: they get injured a lot.

Even if they don’t get injured, picking a running back in the top 10 puts a lot of pressure on your offensive coordinator to run his offense through that running back, which: A)Not a great idea in today’s NFL (unless the RB turns out to be A. Peterson or L. Tomlinson level talent) and B)May not match up to personnel and/or favorable matchups in a particular game. Even if he runs his normal offense, you get the fans and media grousing about “not enough touches” for the higly-drafted RB.

>I have to believe an equal player to Hyde could not have been acquired for nothing.

A fifth round pick is pretty close to nothing. I'd say that if Jacksonville has some reason to particularly like Hyde (ie scheme fit), that's worth a fifth rounder right there. Once you're in the late rounds, you're just throwing darts anyways. What are the odds that that fifth rounder even turns into a player as good as Hyde?

Probably better than 1 in 32. Took a look at the 2016 fifth round, and look, there's Tyreek Hill. Also Jordan Howard. A couple of other starters (I only know Brandon Shell is a starter because I'm a Jets fan), so right there it looks like 1 in 8 chance. Better than the regular lottery.

Sounds pretty typical. From 2015 I count six starters/major contributors (that I recognize*) in the 5th round, six in 2014, five in 2013, with an occasional bona fide star thrown in (Jay Ajayi, Stefon Diggs, Chris Thompson).

That all sounds good, but if you can get a known quantity for the pick and you believe his skills fit your system, that's still a worthwhile trade to make. I think the surety of getting a contributor would easily outweigh the small chance of landing a Hill or Diggs in most circumstances.

(Warning, Steelers biased opinion coming up) For one, at least they did something (However). On the other hand, his only objective on the field seems to injure other players. What will it take for the league to actually suspend the guy? Him sending a QB to IR? For a league that supposedly cares about player safety, allowing a guy that deliberately injures other players seems pretty stupid (Then again ... it's the NFL. It's still frustrating). Hell, not even his own teammates know what the hell he's doing.

I would've liked the Titans to run the ball on that fourth down play inside the 1 and again on the second two-point conversion attempt from the 1. They had a pretty strong running game and it's one yard or less in both cases, even a weak running game is likely to pick it up.

I still wonder why a) They didn't go for one (There was enough time for Rivers to drive downfield, plus the Chargers had 2 times outs. Then again, LAC's kicker luck is bad) and b) didn't run it. Why not just running a QB Draw? QB Sneak? Handoff to Derrick Henry?

It's time for another season of FO gameday chat! Join a star-studded cast of your favorite FO posters as we say smart, analytic and totally backed by data things about the football games...in real time!

Unlike Jon Gruden, FO gameday chat isn't beholden to old ways of doing things so we've migrated from slack to discord the season. Among other advantages, it makes it really easy to join, just click the discord invite link: https://discord.gg/brXG8c

Please note that it'll probably take a few minutes for one of our admins to matriculate you into the chat

Crazy play in Philly! Eric Reid on a blitz tackles Wentz after a handoff (could have been a play fake!), Ertz takes exception even though it wasn't a particularly hard tackle, and tries to retaliate but Reid sees him coming and suplexes him! Both get flagged for it, but I have to say that's Reid 2, Eagles 0 on that play

You can't fully judge watching live, but it seems like while Trubisky can make some nice, accurate throws to his first read or two within the timing and structure of the play, he starts to spray the ball if he has to hold on and work through his progressions and find receivers. Interesting because it's at odds with the fact that he's very good at shaking defenders in the backfield and scrambling. Anyway, Belichick and the Patriots didn't give him many easy throws in the first half there.

This Bears game is crazy. Watching the Pats first drive it looked like it was going to be a long day for the defense, but forcing two fumbles helps a lot. Trubisky looks great on one play and not so good on the next, but that scramble for the TD was incredible. One of those plays where I’m watching it saying “oh shit, oh shit, oh shit...YES!”

A team that falls three games below .500 is usually not going to ever get back in playoff contention. If they do, it will probably take all season for them to get there. But if this 13-0 lead holds up it will have taken just four games for the Texans to rally all the way back to being in sole possession of first in their division. They aren't even at the halfway point of their season.

If your point is that "control" is not well-defined... OK. I'm not going to argue with that.

But this Gordon play is not even notable. He had full control by any definition - never bobbled it at all. If it was a questionable catch, that 95% of all catches are questionable. You've picked an odd example to rail against the way the catch rule is written.

no, I'd say his forward progress is stopped at that exact moment and the ball is dead where it was - because as a runner , he is in control of the ball by default

Gordon had not established control as he was a diving/fallign receiver. the end point of his establishing control is being through the ground. he was not through the ground when his helmet came off. in fact his facemask was the first part of him to touch the ground other than his toes. and it came off instantly *before* any other body part. *before* his elbow/arm hit and the ball didn't move in them (impressive as that is). It's a stupid rule(s), and it was called incorrectly and illogically. About the only thing worse is when the refs don't have a camera angle, but somehow assume that human anatomy and physiology don't exist. "we can't see he had the ball this far {despite the fact he has an arm, and we know he didn't fumble it, and we can see his elbow is past the Line of Gain, and we know the ball was past his elbow... but./..... we can't SEE it"..."

This is just a vicious circle of immensely stupid arguments. Gordon clearly caught the ball until he was down by contact. The fact that he lost his helmet on contact with the ground after being down is irrelevant.

He caught it and maintained possession to the ground, where he was touched down, so the play's dead at that point, I believe.

I think the whole "control" thing only comes into play where the ball is being bobbled about on the way to the ground, which I don't think was the case here. The ball was securely in Gordon's hands until he flipped it away.

so if a player is deemed to be in control of the ball mid air and falling --- in the event that later their helmet comes off - they should be deemed in control of the ball mid air and falling even if their helmet does not come off. right? the helmet shouldn't matter . so we don't need possession through the ground at all.
right?

As soon as he hit the ground with control, because his helmet popped off, he could then not do anything else (per the helmet rule you are citing). However, he was down by contact anyway, so it didn't matter that his helmet was off. (Had a Bear not been touching him when he fell, then the helmet coming off would mean the play was over.)

I was all set to praise Nagy for getting the ball back at his 38 with 14 seconds left and 2 timeouts and not just taking a knee. First play is a pass to Burton to about the 45 of the Patriots. 8 seconds left. Trubisky throws it to Cohen who gets out of bounds with 1 second left. It would be a 58-yard field goal try, so I’m totally fine with opting for the Hail Mary try.

And then Trubisky throws a 15ish-yard pass to Cohen who gets tackled to end the half. WTF? What was the point of that?

Not sure why they didn't try the field goal, there. Long range but low risk as time would run out. Maybe the wind was in their face and they didn't want to give up a possible Patterson/Gordon return if the ball fell short.

Next best choice would presumably be throw it in the end zone and hope for a flag. Trubinsky has the arm to get it there easily from that position.

Last choice would be some sort of trickery over the middle, which is what I thought the call was at first. But no, no lateral, just stat stuffing. Very, very odd.

Yeah, I am not aware of what the wind was. I know Parkey’s career long is 53 but he should be physically capable of kicking a 58 yarder. If the wind wasn’t in his face, I’d think the FG try provides the most expected points even if it’s a 1 in 3 or 1 in 4 chance.

I find it very hard to believe that the short pass over the middle isn’t the worst possible choice there.

Great discipline by the Bears' defence on Brady's attempted trickery at the goal line. Didn't matter as White scored the next play, but looked like not a single Bear dropped their guard while Brady was yelling pre direct snap to the RB.

With Gronk out and Mitchel hurt, the Bears seemed to have keyed on Edelman and have pretty much shut him down. Now they need an answer for White out of the backfield and Gordon, who seems open on nearly every play, even if Brady can't always get the ball to him. Holding the NE offence to 14 points is a pretty good result for the first half, even it was helped by Brady no longer having the arm strength to get the ball to Gordon and Hogan when they're open down field.

Even down by 4, the Bears are in a good spot to pull this out in the second half. At some point, though, Trubinsky has to complete some of those passes he's drifting over receivers' heads on those 5- to 10-yard routes. His ability to keep the chains moving with his legs has been really good, and his deep ball is a threat. If he ever starts completing passes to receivers in the flats this offence is going to score some points.

Start of Q4 now and the Bears have the ball down by only 7. Trub even completed a great over the middle pass on 3rd and 3 to move the sticks, instead of throwing the ball 3 yards over the receiver's head.

This feels like a game the Bears can take. Would make a huge difference to their playoff odds if they do.

This time it's Gilmore's turn to play "drop the ferret" in the end zone and Chicago has it's second drive of the game end in a TD despite Trubinsky throwing the ball directly into the hands of a NE defender.

Not that he has ever really validated himself as a good or even above-average starter, but kind of surprising that after how long they've stuck with him that the Jaguars have decided now is the time to bench Blake Bortles

I continue to have very high hopes, but he's been looking like teams have "film on him" now (as much as I question that, because an offense can likewise figure out a defense at the same rate. And all of the superlatives we are using with him are ones we used with Colt McCoy in 2010.

I don’t understand why I am seeing Josh Bellamy so much in this game. He is without a doubt a terrible wide receiver. The Bears have at least five better pass catching options than him (Robinson, Miller, Gabriel, Burton, and Cohen). There is no reason for him to see the field as a WR absent injuries.

Things are suddenly tightening up a whole lot in Eagles-Panthers. Cam Newton was stuck below 100 yards passing and the Panthers hadn't scored at all into the 4th quarter, but two consecutive TD drives have them trailing by just 3 inside of 5 minutes.

Panthers get the ball back but throw three straight incompletions all before the two minute warning. The announcers actually want them to punt, which is really stupid. Carolina rightfully goes for it, Cam finds the open man, the Eagles don't make the tackle and with the extra yardage Carolina is already on the edge of FG range. Now they can go for the lead and not just the tie.

EDIT: Wow, on the replay Cam Newton was basically in the middle of a jump when he made that 4th down pass. He was leaping up, trying to get away from a defender and still has the strength to throw the ball with his feet in the air.

Carolina gets down to third and goal from the 1 and a pass to a wide open Greg Olsen gets them the lead. This has been a pretty crazy rally. I believe the announcers said they had punted five straight times to open the game. Now three straight TDs. Philly will have 1:22 to respond but they need a TD.

Part of me really wishes that the reason Adam Vinatari missed the final extra point in Indianapolis-Buffalo is that he realized that there had already been a NFL game with a score of 38-5, but not one with a score of 37-5.

Before you ask, yes, Buffalo was also the losing team in the 38-5 team; it was in 2003 against Kansas City. Buffalo has actually scored 5 points on four separate occasions; no other NFL team has done it more than once. (Buffalo is also the only team to win a game by score 5 points, winning 5-0 against Cincinnati in 1978.)

The Eagles got a big pass interference play on first down to move inside the Carolina 30, but from there they go four and out and lose. I still think they are the best team in the NFC East, but they are really opening things up for the Redskins or Cowboys to have a great shot to take the division.

I also think that without Mack at 100%, the Bears won't win many games.

NE's been all sorts of off this game. No Gronk. Lost Michel early (and probably for the season), who was their last healthy power runner. Brady's missing passes and his receivers are dropping them. And Belichick's punting from the Chicago 32 to make sure Trub has a chance to play hero.

I’m sure it’s happened before, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a Hail Mary pass completed, but a yard short of the end zone. The Bears didn’t deserve to win this one, but damn.

Not sure what to think about them going forward. I expected this game to be a loss and I realize that facing Brady is a lot harder than facing Osweiler, but a defense this bad at tackling isn’t very good at all. And I know Mack is hurt, but the rest of the D should be top ten caliber without him, or else what was the point of trading for him?

The game between NE and BAL in 2007. BAL had a potential game-winning hail mary come up a yard short. (The was the game where BAL had won it, but oops, Rex Ryan called timeout on the play where BAL stuffed NE on 4th down to win.)

The hell?! First Chandler Catanzaro pushes a 40 yarder wide right to win the game (And missed a PAT mind you). Then in OT, he sends a 59 yarder (Which only Justin Tucker or Graham Gano or Sebastian Janikowski do consistently, and even then in the case of the last 2) through the uprights.

Wow, Catanzaro missed a 40-yard FG and an XP earlier in the game, but now hits one from 59 to win it. In other news a Bucs QB had yet another huge passing days as Jameis passed for 365 yards. If my calculations are correct the two-headed monster of Fitzpatrick and Winston are on pace for almost 6000 passing yards.

I remember some teams use DLineman as blockers in GoalLine sets. I think the Jags used Tyson Alualu (Back when he was in Jacksonville) that way. And there is the very, very rare case of Mike Vrabel, Red Zone Weapon. I don't think many LBs line up as TE now a days.

The Falcons had so many linemen get injured in a game a few years ago that they had to have a tight end play tackle all game. Can't imagine that went great. As far as long snappers go, they usually aren't anywhere near big enough to play offensive line. Since a defender can't line up directly over them, they don't actually have to be big enough to win a block. They just have to be able to be able to slightly slow down a defender who has to slant a couple of gaps to get to them. Teams usually like a roughly linebacker-sized guy at the position because they can contribute more to punt coverage than a full-sized center would be able to.

6 of 12 for 61 yards and 2 fumbles. He managed to score 0 points during the game. I'm guessing that no points, plus the fact that he was in "Bad to Terrible Bortles" mode in the last 2 weeks (The 4 picks against Kansas City, and the blowout against Dallas), was enough for Marrone to bench him.

I don't think that 4th quarter stat padding reputation makes much sense for Bortles in recent times, if it was ever really true. The Jags were an excellent team last year and lost few games so of course there was little opportunity for such things. This year they are losing more but their loss last week against the Cowboys is the only example of a blowout loss in which Bortles has been playing late.

Anyway, I doubt this benching will be permanent. I very much doubt Cody Kessler is genuinely a better option.

Okay, Bengals fans. My wife wants to watch a movie. Should we start watching it now so I can catch Q4? or will that be garbage time already, in which case I may as well watch the first 15 minutes to see how the Bengals look in primetime.

Their record says they can play with the Chiefs, but I can't see this still being a game by halftime. Am I being unduly harsh on the Bengals?

I got home at the end of the 1Q. It's now the half. The Bengals have shown some against the KC defense, but the defense is one of the worst and they should do better. Their defense has shown they can't stop Mahomes. The Bengals had to call time out on defense because one DB didn't get back in time when KC was in a hurry-up. They had to call another for something as equally stupid. It's now 24-7. I'm going to watch a movie.

Just got home from the Ravens Saints game. Hats off to Drew Brees on 500.

Also, seeing the play live and coming home and reviewing it in slo-mo on GamePass, i'm almost positive Brees didn't pick up the first down on that 4th and 1 before the Saints scored their third TD. I'll know for sure when the coaches film comes out on game pass in a couple days. It looks like where both of the refs are coming in to spot the ball would've been short as well, but after both teams stood around gesturing at them for awhile they spot it forward of that point. Too bad the Ravens had to use both challenges early in the first quarter, although there still might not have been enough evidence from the camera angles (although the coaches film that I guess the refs don't get to see will give a conclusive answer, since Brees reached over the pile with the ball). Kind of a bummer (if I'm right), but it was a hell of a game nonetheless. here's the farthest forward he got the ball. seems about a foot shy of the first down marker https://imgur.com/F1TJwux

I'm not sure what this angle is telling me about the position of the ball relative to the down marker. The camera's behind and above the ball, shooting forward and down.

I'm no expert in this field (hopefully the NFL replay officials are), so I don't know how the ball will look relative to the yard markers when flattened to 2D from this angle. The only thing I know for sure is I've seen enough of these types of photos, shown from multiple different camera angles, to know not to trust my eyes when it comes to a flat photograph of a 3D event.

well the coaches film will be out in a few days on GamePass and i'll be able to see for sure then cause the shot should be right overhead, but like i said i was at the game, not just trying to interpret the replay, so i did actually see it in 3D. the main thing is that the refs looked like they both had the spot perfect coming in from either sideline, so i don't know why they'd listen to both sides plead their case and then choose a different spot. what good does listening to the players do? just put the ball where you saw it.

Watch closely -- you'll see that whenever a first down is made outside the 20s, when the refs actually spot the ball for the ensuing first down play they will "cheat" and move the nose of the ball be right on top of the front edge of the nearest yardline. So once the ball is spotted when a play is blown dead they know whether or not it's a first down without needing any chains -- because they can easily see if the ball is at least right on top of the front edge of the line to gain, which will always be a yardline.

Browns/Landry had an illegal shift penalty; he wasn't set pre-snap. But it looked like a normal motion - they ran it almost identical 2 plays right after it, and no flag was thrown.
Can someone enlighten me, why a single man, off the LOS, in motion is a penalty??